Tuesday, 30 July 2013

Sincerest form of flattery or a cynical counterfeit?

Just when you thought the Scottish separation debate couldn't sink any lower or get any more depressing along comes an example of the kind of cynical dishonesty which disgusts and disillusions people in equal measure.

The SNP know that they cannot succeed without the kind of support enjoyed by the Scottish Constitutional Convention: a broad-based campaign which had support across Scottish society - from churches, community groups, trades unions and business groups - all undeprinned by the democratic authority of (most) of our political parties.

There is one serious impediment to the SNP's plans to emulate the convention. Where devolution had the overwhelming support of the vast majority of Scots, separation remains very much a minority interest. What to do?

Those clever wee monkeys over at SNP HQ have come up with the answer. If the real Labour movement won't give its support for separation then just fake one that does.

There was the SNP claim that a 4,000-strong CWU branch backed separation. That fell apart almost immediately when it was revealed that rather than the thousands claimed, the vote for separation wasn't in the thousands, or even the hundreds for that matter, but in the dozens.

Their sham Labour Party for Independence is going the same way. Its launch looked like a badly-organised stunt, senior SNP figures have been caught impersonating Labour supporters and its website is a mix of mysogyny, bile, paranoia and swivel-eyed grievance-fuelled bampottery. In fact the only link to the Labour Party seems to be the logo they've stolen.

The cynicism and dishonesty in presenting a fake grouping as bona fide, complete with support from senior SNP figures, is a new low in an already shabby campaign for separation. LabourForIndy is a cheap knock-off; it's a con; and the SNP are clearly behind it.

The mystery here is why the media are so reluctant to report the deception...


  1. "The mystery here is why the media are so reluctant to report the deception..."

    You are talking about the British media?

    If there was any truth in this allegation, don't you think the likes of Cochrane or Johnson would have?

  2. Hi Conan

    As far as I know there are currently at least two Scottish journalists working on this story. There could possibly be more.

    The turning point for me was when the BBC ran the so-called 'conference' at the weekend as a news story without pointing out that this group was a counterfeit.

    Again, SNP HQ being too cute for its own good with very senior SNP figures making the pretty basic error of giving support to a group they know to be fake.

    For me it is just amazing that the YESnp campaign continues to keep up with its Monty Python theme. This time we have a bullshit SNP group behaving like the women at the stoning scene in the Life Of Brian - only this time it's not women wearing false beards pretending to be men it's nats delivering fake Labour Party leaflets saying we're Labour...

  3. Is that all you have Graham?

    You are describing Euan "News of the World" McColm as a journalist.

    I must disagree.

    But a drowning man will clutch at straws...

    Don't get me started on Simon Johnson.

    Don't you find it sad that you are siding with Tory hacks in an increasingly desperate attack on the only socialist party in power in the UK?

  4. Conan

    Oh dear. If we were playing Scottish media bingo I'd have a full house!

    Every newspaper and both STV and BBC have carried news of the SNP's deception in the last few days. Unless you are now in the NutterNet camp believing everybody in the media is out to get you.

    I don't know if you saw the car crash interview with Mr Grogan on TV last night but he didn't know how many members his sham group has nor could he name one Labour policy he prefers over its SNP counterpart.

    The SNP have been caught once again pumping out garbage and instead of putting their hands up and promising to stop they continue to peddle their tripe as if everybody is as thick as the more gullible wing of cybernattery...

  5. Grahamski,

    Oh if only you had a crystal ball! The No. 2 Branch of the CWU does in fact support *independence. It is true however that it isn't the whole branch but is in fact just the people who run the branch who support independence.

    Fast forward a year and the less-than-clever wee monkeys in New Labour are copying this same trick by having the CWU say they are backing staying within the **Tory Union. Turns out that the "20,000 Scottish posties" who were voting No was in fact just a handful of New Labour delegates who were backing the motion. Hell they could only get 60% of their Scottish delegates to back the motion and relied on the English delegates (I wonder who has more delegates, England or Scotland? Hmm!) to get the motion passed.

    Still, I don't think "English New Labour delegates back remaining in the Tory Union!" has the same ring to it. Does it?

    I wonder what the 60% of Scottish delegates got offered as a "reward" for their backing?

    So the 20,000 No votes that was splashed about the media was in fact just a few New Labour Party members. That's a huge difference, don't you agree? Still it's not as if the Biased Broadcasting Corporation were ever going to sabotage their own story by pointing out such things as facts.

    As for the "sham party" that is Labour for Independence movement? The truth is that it is the exact opposite from what you claim. Pointing out that a few of its members just happened to previously hold SNP membership is missing the real truth. Most, if not all, of these former SNP membership holders (who let's face it only make up a small percentage of the Labour for Independence movement only joined the SNP because they became disillusioned, not only with their former party's (New Labour) refusal to grant real powers to the Scottish Executive but also New Labour's abandoning of the whole home rule ethos.

    How can any real Labour supporter stay loyal to New Labour when they refuse to abolish the 'anti-union' laws, have a leader (Ed Milliband) who enthuse about Thatcherite policies and plans on continuing her legacy, have (since Blair came to power) been privatising the NHS and tried on many occasions to privatise the Royal Mail (***including blatantly lying to the public how bad the company's profits were) only to fail because the workforce (union members with true Labour values) refused to accept their proposals.

    Many of these people left the Labour Party in disgust and joined the SNP because the only way to implement socialist values was in an independent Scotland. Then a few of them decided this referendum provided them with the opportunity to try and reclaim the Labour Party from Thatcher lovers and MPs who are clearly anti-socialists.

    *Repeating the "separation" mantra of Westminster puppets like Lamont just seems childish and therefore I won't enter into it.

    **The Act of Union was forced through against the wishes of the Scots populace by the Tories. In case you didn't know the Tories were aligned with Henry VIII and as such hated the fact that their country was being ruled by a barbaric Scotsman. This led to the Tories to "invite" William of Orange over to kick the Stuart King of the English throne. You can't alter history. Although Better Together would probably invent some lies to suit their agenda.

    *** Royal Mail was never in financial dire straits, all New Labour did (as Royal Mail was at the time exempt from the rules that govern the private sector's publishing of profits laws) was present the figures so that it appeared that Royal Mail was losing money so that it could push through its modernisation agenda (read as privatisation agenda) against the wishes of the workforce.